Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Let's discuss some Facts

Expand Messages
  • braindeadslut2
    ... takes ... tax ... You could try that argument with Munch, but his hatred for Clinton will rewrite history on everything you claim. It s too bad, because
    Message 1 of 233 , Apr 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In achristianvsatheistclub@yahoogroups.com, "Michelle"
      <just_michelle_71@y...> wrote:

      > And hey, if a blow job and a joint every now and then is all it
      > to keep this country running the way it did with Clinton in office
      > then I'd be willing to chip in for the hookers and weed with my
      > dollars. That's the American way."

      You could try that argument with Munch, but his hatred for Clinton
      will rewrite history on everything you claim.

      It's too bad, because the 'give money' approach SEEMS to work with
      Munch.......he's such a slut!
    • lord_of_the_munch
      ... Ok, don t admit it. You really ought to deal with it, but go ahead and suppress it another few years and see where it gets you. ... What event? ... Sure.
      Message 233 of 233 , Apr 21, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In achristianvsatheistclub@yahoogroups.com, dolphinpeople
        <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > --- In achristianvsatheistclub@yahoogroups.com, lord_of_the_munch
        > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Ok, I guess that is the most important/exciting thing in your
        > > > world. Glad you can get a charge out of something trivial.
        > Guess
        > > > it makes for a very charged up life for you.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Why is it the left-wingers insist on telling everyone else what
        > > they "REALLY" said/think/believe?
        > ----------------------------------------------
        > You told me I was REALLY saying/thinking/believing something that
        > clearly contradicts MY opinion and is actually YOUR opinion of what
        > I said/thought/believed: "You're just upset because he broke some
        > key stories which turned out not only to be true, but were
        > embarrassing to your favorite dick in the White House."

        Ok, don't admit it. You really ought to deal with it, but go ahead
        and suppress it another few years and see where it gets you.

        > I didn't change what you said, I used exagerated sarcasm to make a
        > point that I believe you are seeing a trivial event as something
        > major. I characterized YOUR belief/point/observation from my point
        > of view: trivial. Which is MY point that I have been making. I
        > did not try to say YOUR opinion is that the event was trivial or
        > something else that is not your opinion.

        What event?

        > While it is not a decorus tactic I used, it is in support of MY OWN
        > opinion. I did not claim you held a belief or agenda, as you did
        > with me.
        > Can you see the difference?

        Sure. You're wrong.

        > You: Claiming I have some belief/motive I don't have at all.
        > Me: Sarcastically characterizing your opinion as "making a
        > mountain out of a mole hill."
        > So, please in the future critisize my unfair tactics correctly! :-)

        I'd much rather unfairly criticize your unfair tactics incorrectly!

        > So is there a conspiracy preventing Ja Rule's shennanigans from
        > being reported on CNN? Or Yanni's?

        I don't think Ja Rule knows shennanigans from a baluba. And what's
        Yanni been up to?



        > > And they probably
        > > liked her until she made that remark.
        > >
        > --------------------------------------
        > That's one problem with neo-cons. They turn on you as soon as you
        > have an opinion they didn't tell you to have.

        So redneck country music fans are neo-cons? It makes them sound so

        > > A coordinated effort? Control the news? Make opinions appear to
        > be
        > > facts? What are you smoking?
        > ------------------------------------
        > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4320013,00.html
        > "Before the terrorist war, conservatives had lost the Soviet Union
        > a rallying cause, and their coalition occasionally looked ready to
        > implode. What held them together was the strategic vision of their
        > leaders and the mountains of money that underwrite their efforts.
        > issues appeared to change almost daily. One day the threat was
        > on another it was guns. A third day it was stem cell research, and
        > the next Hollywood, homosexuals and abortion rights.
        > Their weekly agenda was hammered out every Wednesday at a meeting
        > chaired by Grover Norquist, a rightwing Leninist who believes in an
        > ever-shifting tactical alliance. Sometimes this involves courting
        > business community, as it did when fighting for Bush's tax cut.
        > Sometimes it means opposing them, when, for instance, the movement
        > wishes to punish the Chinese communist infidels. Norquist has been
        > known to describe the US government as "tyrannical and
        > a regime that "steals too much of people's money and... murders
        > people in Waco". He says his goal is "to cut government in half in
        > years... to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the
        > bathtub". Among those who attend the invitation-only meetings are
        > spokespeople and representatives of NRA, the Christian Coalition,
        > Heritage Foundation; corporate lobbyists, the top people from the
        > Republican party and the Congressional Republican leadership, and
        > chief White House aides. Trusted rightwing journalists and editors
        > also attend, though the meetings are off the record.
        > While the ostensible purpose of the meeting is to share information
        > and coordinate strategy, they also give Norquist the opportunity to
        > act as an ideological enforcer. When one member of the Bush
        > administration worried to a New York Times reporter that the
        > administration's plan to repeal the estate tax would cripple
        > charitable giving, he was publicly warned by Norquist that this
        > was "the first betrayal of Bush", and was gone not long afterward.
        > When a conservative pundit named Laura Ingraham criticised a fellow
        > conservative in the House of Representatives for over-zealousness,
        > she was immediately informed by Norquist to decide "whether to be
        > with us or against us". She was no longer welcome at the meetings."

        Only a left leaning media outlet could get away with printing that

        > But, yes, you finally got it, I was talking about the personalities
        > themselves that are ON the news.

        What a waste of time.

        LotM ~ almost as bad as the internet ~
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.